Debating clean energy: Frames, counter frames, and audiences

In the United States, both scholars and practitioners have repeatedly emphasized the importance of “issue framing” for garnering public support for climate change policy. However, the debate frequently overlooks the importance of counter frames. For every framing attempt by advocates of climate policy, there will be a counter frame by the opponents of climate policy. How do counter frames influence the effectiveness of issue framing as a communication strategy? To answer this question, we report results from a survey experiment on a nationally representative sample of 1000 Americans on clean energy policy, a key policy issue in the public debate on climate change in the United States. Overall, we find that different combinations of positive and negative frames have remarkably little effect on support for clean energy policy. A follow-up on-line survey experiment with a convenience sample of 2000 Americans suggests that the counter frames are responsible for undermining the effects of the original frames.

[1]  Lisa Dilling,et al.  Making Climate HOT , 2004 .

[2]  N. Schwarz,et al.  “Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording , 2011 .

[3]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models , 2007 .

[4]  Anthony Leiserowitz,et al.  Cross‐National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain , 2006 .

[5]  Michael J. Graetz.  Chapters 11 and 12 Excerpted from the End of Energy: The Unmaking of America's Environment, Security, and Independence , 2011 .

[6]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects , 2004, American Political Science Review.

[7]  Pamela J. Bretschneider,et al.  The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications , 2011 .

[8]  Derek D. Rucker,et al.  What's in a frame anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty , 2008 .

[9]  Baba Shiv,et al.  When Blemishing Leads to Blossoming: The Positive Effect of Negative Information , 2012 .

[10]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter? , 2011 .

[11]  Kasper M. Hansen.  The Sophisticated Public: The Effect of Competing Frames on Public Opinion , 2007 .

[12]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk , 2012, Political Analysis.

[13]  P. Brewer,et al.  Values, Framing, and Citizens' Thoughts about Policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quantity , 2005 .

[14]  P. S. Visser,et al.  Attitudes in the social context: the impact of social network composition on individual-level attitude strength. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[15]  S. O'Neill,et al.  An iconic approach for representing climate change , 2009 .

[16]  S. Moser.  Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions , 2010 .

[17]  Aaron M. McCright,et al.  Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims , 2000 .

[18]  Matthew Lockwood,et al.  Does the framing of climate policies make a difference to public support? Evidence from UK marginal constituencies , 2011 .

[19]  David S. Yeager,et al.  Measuring Americans' Issue Priorities A New Version of the Most Important Problem Question Reveals More Concern About Global Warming and the Environment , 2011 .

[20]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[21]  Lorraine Whitmarsh,et al.  Reorienting Climate Change Communication for Effective Mitigation , 2009 .

[22]  Robb Willer,et al.  Apocalypse Soon? , 2011, Psychological science.

[23]  Chad Raphael,et al.  Interpersonal divide: The search for community in a technological age ‐ by Michael Bugeja , 2006 .

[24]  Paul R. Brewer,et al.  Framing, Value Words, and Citizens' Explanations of Their Issue Opinions , 2002 .

[25]  James N. Druckman,et al.  Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies , 2007, American Political Science Review.

[26]  Nicholas Frank Pidgeon,et al.  Framing and Communicating Climate Change: The Effects of Distance and Outcome Frame Manipulations , 2010 .

[27]  Thomas J. Leeper,et al.  A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability , 2012, American Political Science Review.

[28]  Robert Gifford,et al.  Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions , 2011 .

[29]  Paul R. Brewer,et al.  Competing Frames for a Public Health Issue and Their Effects on Public Opinion , 2010 .

[30]  P. Sol Hart,et al.  Boomerang Effects in Science Communication , 2012, Commun. Res..

[31]  Kevin Arceneaux.  Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments , 2012 .

[32]  E. Goffman.  Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience , 1974 .

[33]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[34]  Ted Nordhaus,et al.  Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility , 2007 .

[35]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement , 2009 .